BANKS AND THEIR CRITICS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 147, 24 June 1933, Page 8

BANKS AND THEIR CRITICS

111-informed criticisms of the banks in general . were warmly resented yesterday by some shareholders of the Bank of New Zealand. They seized the opportunity of the annual meeting of that bank to emphasise the value of the servicerendered to the Government and the community by the banks. One speaker described much of the adverse criticism of the banks as "pernicious propaganda," and another, speaking in militant metaphor, suggested that: . the directors- should "take the gloves off" to combat it. Sir George Elliot, a former chairman of the Bank of New Zealand, having referred to tiie careful management of- and provision for losses made by that bank, pointed with' good reason to the fact that New Zealand had so far weathered the economic storm of the past four years. This he attributed to the strength of the banks and other lending' institutions. Millions of pounds had been written off, in other words Ipst; but by the pursuit of a cautiqus policy and the exercise of foresight in good times, this loss had been met out of the banks' own resources. Mr. L. McKenzie revealed another side of the Bank of New' Zealand (and no doubt of the other banks) when he expressed his thanks for the assistance rendered by that bank to its "small clients." As the chairman (Mr. R. W. Gibbs) observed earlier in the meeting, "The farmer is not by any means the only sufferer. . . . The farmer has at least an abundance of food." But New Zealand is by no means singular in respect to hostile criticism of the banks. The National Bank of Australasia has just pointed with admonitory finger to the destructive and harmful criticisms. of the banks of Australia at a time when those institutions are presenting a united and hitherto impregnable front agamst tremendous onslaughts of unprecedented economic odds. It is not a matter of opinion but of solid fact that but for the strength of the banks of Australia and New Zealand nothing could have saved this country and its neighbour across the Tasman Sea from grave disaster beside which the financial troubles oi" 1893 would have appeared _lmost trivialities. The traditional reticence of bankers, however, in some slight measure may be responsible fbr milch of the criticism of the kind to which shareholders of the Bank of New Zealand yesterday objected. Even so, it is lamentable that persons'in positions of authority, here and in Australia, are often ready to abuse the banks. As Sir George Elliot temarked yesterday, "It is unfortunate that success in any direction seems to be unpopular in New Zealand." This attitude was never more regrettable than at present. The sooner it is changed the sooner will prosperity- return to this Dominion.